Mark Comparisons, 5 Categories, 10 logos.
Posted: September 1st, 2010 | Author: Dave | Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »I’ve done a bit of analysis on some logos around and some national for class, I’ve decided to share some of my critiques!
Professional
Good:
Rubber Division The direct message this logo conveys lends itself to easy readability and memorability. There is no fuss with the distinct shapes created with the companies colors. This relates to the fun and edgy nature the company may have.
Bad:
Trotter Massage Therapy, Sandra L. Trotter BS, LMT
Massage therapy isn’t directly communicated with this logo as hoped. It conveys mixed interpretations, almost the elements of nature. A wet leaf doesn’t explain relaxation to me. Empty clues on a logo leads to skepticism of the actual product.
Retail
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame + Museum
Synonymous with the architecture this logo represents, the message is rock and roll. It’s apparent in the circular containment with the title and descriptor. Strings of a guitar lead your eye up to the title of Rock and Roll. This logo can be produced in any medium and easy read.
Bad:
Savvy Chic Boutique
Not so much of Savvy but dated. There is barely any connection between Savvy and boutique, only the descriptor describes what the business actually does. Sharp angles and sharp italic font bring this logo down to confusion.
Service
Good:
Booney & Poorch Pet Spa and Boutique
Clean, appropriate font thats fairly readable from a distance. This was one of the most recognizable pet shop logos. The symbol of the dogs hand drawn are great descriptors of the service.
Bad:
Fairlawn Pet Resort
Extremely dated font choices, with the actual sizing of the font being skewed to the point of ligatures. The animals dancing could be used better, instead of being an after thought slapped above. This logo doesn’t have any natural containment and a horrible color pallete.
Non-Profit Organizations
Good:
Goodwill
Easily recognizable in any mall setting, Goodwill has lasted the test of time of logos. The incorporation of the smile in the G and the
repetition of the eye are clues to a fantastic logo. The colors being used are friendly to the eye, and as a non profit does not have an intimidating aura.
Bad:
Earth Day Coalition
Despite the friendly circulation of an earth with the letter a, the impact of this logo is anything but a coalition of good. Color pallette is fine but the font choice and organization makes the coalition seem amateurish. A clean sharp logo would do so much more for this effort
Manufacturing
Good:
Akron Brass Company
Akron Brass Company has appropriate font choice and symbol. The color choice matches well with the Brass characteristics. Good use of leading and kerning of letters.
Bad:
Ferriot Inc.
This logo has horrible dropshadows being used to punch the letters. The boring font choice is further exemplified by the color choice and three elementary shapes on the left of the type. As manufacturers go, Ferriot looks dated and old.
Recent Comments